Jan 15, 2020, 3:06 PM No. Because with large corporations we need via-negativa in courts to be able to correct bad behavior. And the state (politicians) are too easily (and frequently) bought. Furthermore they are too economically illiterate to comprehend the choices, and left-economists too dominant as consultants. (Obama only asked left wing jewish economists: Krugman Stiglitz etc). P-Constitution restores the courts as a market for defense of the commons. P-economics restores the financial assets made possible by fiat currency to the state (people), while still permitting bankers, thereby splitting the consumer credit economy, the medium term economy, and the long term economy, to the consumer, business banks, and actors on behalf of the treasury, so that commissions are possible but profits more so, and vast sums can be put to work in the world. As such we WEAPONIZE THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. This is important. P-constitution weaponizes the economy for american (western) interests as have the Chinese at the cost of the major banks (JPM, GS, Citi, HSBC etc). If the People insure the investment then the people obtain the rewards of their risk. For big thinkers this means that we can drive the investment chain further into the future with heavier capital investment using the state, the financial sector can industrialize the application of whatever opportunities those technologies and benefits that can arise. The consumer sector can (interest free) seize the gains. And the proceeds can be directed to commons, so that the work week can be reduced and the working mother population reduced to produce more offspring. (one of the investments needs to be artificial wombs it seems.)
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
The Problem with Efficient Markets
The Problem with Efficient Markets https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/the-problem-with-efficient-markets/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 22:21:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265045237690482691
-
The Problem with Efficient Markets
Jan 15, 2020, 3:10 PM Agricultural goods, construction, and housing are efficient. Is that a good thing? Food other than meat is almost free. Why shouldn’t we drive up the cost of agricultural goods, construction, and ‘materials production’ (steel etc) and housing as the returns we can produce? In other words, at what point are we making things cheaper but making everything more expensive as a consequence? I mean, why not repatriate all digital electronic technology, and all medical technology, and at least conversion of raw materials into production goods, and state finance the whole thing? We can. WE aren’t New Zealand. We aren’t a developing nation. WE are not making things cheaper. We’re spending down genetic, cultural, and institutional capital.
-
The Problem with Efficient Markets
Jan 15, 2020, 3:10 PM Agricultural goods, construction, and housing are efficient. Is that a good thing? Food other than meat is almost free. Why shouldn’t we drive up the cost of agricultural goods, construction, and ‘materials production’ (steel etc) and housing as the returns we can produce? In other words, at what point are we making things cheaper but making everything more expensive as a consequence? I mean, why not repatriate all digital electronic technology, and all medical technology, and at least conversion of raw materials into production goods, and state finance the whole thing? We can. WE aren’t New Zealand. We aren’t a developing nation. WE are not making things cheaper. We’re spending down genetic, cultural, and institutional capital.
-
Why Economists Fail to Propose Successful Solutions
Why Economists Fail to Propose Successful Solutions https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/why-economists-fail-to-propose-successful-solutions/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 22:20:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265045130509197312
-
Why Economists Fail to Propose Successful Solutions
Jan 15, 2020, 3:23 PM Most economists propose nonsense solutions that mean more taxes without changing the structure of the economy. My proposition is pretty simple and has profound consequences. Stop all lying, baiting into hazard, free riding and parasitism upon the people, and capture those proceeds in the production of PHYSICAL commons. THAT IS HOW WE FIX EQUALITY. I’m not in favor of equality. Im’ in favor of suppressing parasitism upon the people so that people aren’t rewarded for parasitism and predation and conquest. The result is MORE equality for the middle class at the cost of the parasitic media, academy, state, financial and probably marketing and advertising sectors. That’s how you fix it. What will happen? I think sh-t through. What will happen is increasing demands for investments that aren’t parasitic, and that leaves accumulating rather than spending down capital. Economists work by income statements. Citizenry works by balance sheets.
-
Why Economists Fail to Propose Successful Solutions
Jan 15, 2020, 3:23 PM Most economists propose nonsense solutions that mean more taxes without changing the structure of the economy. My proposition is pretty simple and has profound consequences. Stop all lying, baiting into hazard, free riding and parasitism upon the people, and capture those proceeds in the production of PHYSICAL commons. THAT IS HOW WE FIX EQUALITY. I’m not in favor of equality. Im’ in favor of suppressing parasitism upon the people so that people aren’t rewarded for parasitism and predation and conquest. The result is MORE equality for the middle class at the cost of the parasitic media, academy, state, financial and probably marketing and advertising sectors. That’s how you fix it. What will happen? I think sh-t through. What will happen is increasing demands for investments that aren’t parasitic, and that leaves accumulating rather than spending down capital. Economists work by income statements. Citizenry works by balance sheets.
-
The 20 Th Century Economies in Context – and How to Fix Them with Propertarianis
The 20 Th Century Economies in Context – and How to Fix Them with Propertarianism https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/the-20-th-century-economies-in-context-and-how-to-fix-them-with-propertarianism/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 22:19:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265044908957732870
-
The 20 Th Century Economies in Context – and How to Fix Them with Propertarianism
Jan 15, 2020, 3:42 PM You know, they called what we do today “Jewish economics” in the pre-war period because it favored investors at the expense of the middle classes (which in those days just meant ‘families’). Keynes was reading MARX, and just removed all references from his book (the general theory) before publishing. Keynes used mathematics (he was first and foremost a mathematician specializing in probability) to give us his elegant simplification of the economy, but he put no measures in place to control it’s abuse – and of course, and Hayek didn’t refute him, and no one produced a limit, so the government just took ‘presumption of growth from presumption of consumption’ as license to convert Keynes’ explanation of how to get out of postwar crisis with how to maximize spending by pushing risk downstream and consuming all institutional, behavioral, normative, physical, and human capital. That limit was a balance sheet, and full accounting of investments and returns. In other words, to maintain the MEASUREMENT that both the GOLD STANDARD and RULE OF LAW had made possible at the cost of inability to react to shocks. This isn’t to dismiss his aggregate theory which is, like all economics, hydraulic. And it isn’t to defend the classical theory, which presumes rational actors, rather than bounded rationality within the limits of our frustration budgets. (We used commercial consumption to sedate ourselves during what has been a long period of social disintegration all of which decrease mindfulness and increase stress, create dysfunctional infantilized ‘woke’ children, reduce our commons into barbarism, loneliness and horrors in old age.) We spent thousands of years incrementally building rule of law leaving only a markets, and in a century we have destroyed rule of law, markets, and our social, institutional, and worst of all, genetic capital. You can’t imagine how much advertising and that evil box in your living room has contributed to destruction of our civilization. But THOUSANDS of thinkers predicted it. The British were right with their BBC – which horrifies the libertarian remnant in me.. But it’s because the left (cognitively female) always and everywhere seeks to create consensus to undermine because it cannot produce and innovate itself. As such the parasite pursues ‘the pulpit’ from whence it conducts it’s false promise, baiting into hazard, as a means of undermining the order and the capital structure of the people who DO produce. Now, I have no problem with censorship in the Russian and Chinese and Turkish models, if it’s censorship of GSRRM, baiting into hazard, and advocacy of capital consumption or underclass reproduction or limiting upper class reproduction – all things that affect the balance sheet (capital). But the court must be there to defend the truth, and the law has to tolerate truth regardless of cost. In other words, it has to be ILLEGAL to suppress truthful statements if it’s Illegal to undermine. This kind of test wasn’t possible until Propertarianism. But it’s possible now. And you can’t imagine (I can and it overwhelms me) how different a world would be if we ended all the f—king lying – including the lying of false promise baiting into hazard, and advocacy of consuming capital.
-
The 20 Th Century Economies in Context – and How to Fix Them with Propertarianism
Jan 15, 2020, 3:42 PM You know, they called what we do today “Jewish economics” in the pre-war period because it favored investors at the expense of the middle classes (which in those days just meant ‘families’). Keynes was reading MARX, and just removed all references from his book (the general theory) before publishing. Keynes used mathematics (he was first and foremost a mathematician specializing in probability) to give us his elegant simplification of the economy, but he put no measures in place to control it’s abuse – and of course, and Hayek didn’t refute him, and no one produced a limit, so the government just took ‘presumption of growth from presumption of consumption’ as license to convert Keynes’ explanation of how to get out of postwar crisis with how to maximize spending by pushing risk downstream and consuming all institutional, behavioral, normative, physical, and human capital. That limit was a balance sheet, and full accounting of investments and returns. In other words, to maintain the MEASUREMENT that both the GOLD STANDARD and RULE OF LAW had made possible at the cost of inability to react to shocks. This isn’t to dismiss his aggregate theory which is, like all economics, hydraulic. And it isn’t to defend the classical theory, which presumes rational actors, rather than bounded rationality within the limits of our frustration budgets. (We used commercial consumption to sedate ourselves during what has been a long period of social disintegration all of which decrease mindfulness and increase stress, create dysfunctional infantilized ‘woke’ children, reduce our commons into barbarism, loneliness and horrors in old age.) We spent thousands of years incrementally building rule of law leaving only a markets, and in a century we have destroyed rule of law, markets, and our social, institutional, and worst of all, genetic capital. You can’t imagine how much advertising and that evil box in your living room has contributed to destruction of our civilization. But THOUSANDS of thinkers predicted it. The British were right with their BBC – which horrifies the libertarian remnant in me.. But it’s because the left (cognitively female) always and everywhere seeks to create consensus to undermine because it cannot produce and innovate itself. As such the parasite pursues ‘the pulpit’ from whence it conducts it’s false promise, baiting into hazard, as a means of undermining the order and the capital structure of the people who DO produce. Now, I have no problem with censorship in the Russian and Chinese and Turkish models, if it’s censorship of GSRRM, baiting into hazard, and advocacy of capital consumption or underclass reproduction or limiting upper class reproduction – all things that affect the balance sheet (capital). But the court must be there to defend the truth, and the law has to tolerate truth regardless of cost. In other words, it has to be ILLEGAL to suppress truthful statements if it’s Illegal to undermine. This kind of test wasn’t possible until Propertarianism. But it’s possible now. And you can’t imagine (I can and it overwhelms me) how different a world would be if we ended all the f—king lying – including the lying of false promise baiting into hazard, and advocacy of consuming capital.