The Market = Nature https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/the-market-nature/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:30:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265500523186262016
The Market = Nature https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/the-market-nature/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:30:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265500523186262016
Dec 7, 2019, 4:44 PM In determination of fitness, the market is the same as nature. one either survival nature in the wild or in the market, or in some combination. But if you cannot survive in the market you are unfit for survival and reproduction. The solution to the majority of resulting conflicts is to separate so that in-group care-taking lowers the threshold.
Dec 7, 2019, 4:44 PM In determination of fitness, the market is the same as nature. one either survival nature in the wild or in the market, or in some combination. But if you cannot survive in the market you are unfit for survival and reproduction. The solution to the majority of resulting conflicts is to separate so that in-group care-taking lowers the threshold.
Definition: Externality https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/definition-externality/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:27:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265499936617123841
Dec 10, 2019, 11:03 PM “Externality” is a technical term and it’s meaning is obvious. If you do something that indirectly and negatively affects a third person, that’s an externality. It means ‘outside of your direct perception’. That’s not complicated. At all. ie: the ridiculous example of a butterfly flapping its wings in china causes tornado in America. The less ridiculous example of playing your music loud at night keeping up the neighbors. “Indirect consequences”.
Dec 10, 2019, 11:03 PM “Externality” is a technical term and it’s meaning is obvious. If you do something that indirectly and negatively affects a third person, that’s an externality. It means ‘outside of your direct perception’. That’s not complicated. At all. ie: the ridiculous example of a butterfly flapping its wings in china causes tornado in America. The less ridiculous example of playing your music loud at night keeping up the neighbors. “Indirect consequences”.
Why Global Capital Hates Sovereign Default https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/why-global-capital-hates-sovereign-default/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:26:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265499706916065293
Dec 19, 2019, 12:09 PM by Michael Churchill Global capital hates defaults because they puncture the whole perma-debt system that keeps overall interest rates lower than they would be otherwise. It’s socialization of risk taken to the meta-level. The most obvious example at present is Argentina, whose debt profile is ludicrously unsustainable. They are a ward of the IMF. Without foreign help Argentine dollar bonds would collapse to zero overnight. But you know with smoke and mirrors you can sort of keep them trading — sometimes at 40 cents on the dollar, sometimes at 75. But either way nothing collapses. To give an idea of scale, Argentina’s foreign-owned dollar bonds are about $150 billion face value. So it’s a lot … enough to create a mini tidal wave if they went to zero … but not the end of the world. The knock on effect would be the removal of the safety net. So everybody else’s yields on dollar bonds would go from 3% to 4.5% right quick. Other countries in shaky terrain are Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Egypt and Lebanon. That said, MOST emerging markets are quite solvent. Basically 97% of the other EMs not mentioned above are fine. Much better than 20 years ago.
CD: I want to point out that it’s in the US’s strategic interest now to NOT generate global stability. And in particular, causing a collapse in Pakistan would be extremely useful for much of the world.
Dec 19, 2019, 12:09 PM by Michael Churchill Global capital hates defaults because they puncture the whole perma-debt system that keeps overall interest rates lower than they would be otherwise. It’s socialization of risk taken to the meta-level. The most obvious example at present is Argentina, whose debt profile is ludicrously unsustainable. They are a ward of the IMF. Without foreign help Argentine dollar bonds would collapse to zero overnight. But you know with smoke and mirrors you can sort of keep them trading — sometimes at 40 cents on the dollar, sometimes at 75. But either way nothing collapses. To give an idea of scale, Argentina’s foreign-owned dollar bonds are about $150 billion face value. So it’s a lot … enough to create a mini tidal wave if they went to zero … but not the end of the world. The knock on effect would be the removal of the safety net. So everybody else’s yields on dollar bonds would go from 3% to 4.5% right quick. Other countries in shaky terrain are Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Egypt and Lebanon. That said, MOST emerging markets are quite solvent. Basically 97% of the other EMs not mentioned above are fine. Much better than 20 years ago.
CD: I want to point out that it’s in the US’s strategic interest now to NOT generate global stability. And in particular, causing a collapse in Pakistan would be extremely useful for much of the world.
Follow the Money: Most Profitable Sectors https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/follow-the-money-most-profitable-sectors/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:25:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265499278367219712