Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • Where do you get that? why don’t we just pay people NOT to have kids instead of

    Where do you get that? why don’t we just pay people NOT to have kids instead of pay them TO have them.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-27 00:13:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254564400998027265

    Reply addressees: @dormant511 @EricLiford @ekiekipatang

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254560520428048385

  • These are small numbers. We need to see T’s not B’s

    These are small numbers. We need to see T’s not B’s.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-26 22:59:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254545781677264898

    Reply addressees: @RickyBobby_USA @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254532660229267460

  • HAYEK’S WARNING via John John Stephens —“The curious task of economics is to d

    HAYEK’S WARNING

    via John John Stephens

    —“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”— Friedrich August von Hayek, The Fatal Conceit

    CD: That’s really the lesson of the 20th. Hubris via pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-26 21:37:00 UTC

  • Definitions: Capitalism, Mixed Economy, and Socialism: A Eugenic vs Dysgenic Gam

    Definitions: Capitalism, Mixed Economy, and Socialism: A Eugenic vs Dysgenic Game

    RIGHT: Rule of Law, Markets in Everything (j:Capitalism): the voluntary organization of production as a the result of the incentives that result from the anarchic evolution of money, prices, exchanges and contracts under the single principle, norm, regulation or law of the voluntary exchange of private property. This process is naturally meritocratic and eugenic and therefore scientific, which is the reason why the marxists despise it.

    CENTER: Mixed economy: the voluntary organization of production of capitalism, combined with the involuntary confiscation and redistribution of the proceeds of production. It can be dysgenic or eugenic, meritocratic or not, depending upon the amount of confiscation and the use of confiscated proceeds. This is the least worst option in which neither lower nor upper classes can obtain better conditions. (Like marriage).

    LEFT: Arbitrary Rule, Absence of Markets: Socialism (j:Communism): the involuntary organization of production and the distribution of proceeds independent of the contribution to production. It is dysgenic and non meritocratic, and provides insufficient incentives to produce enough to meet demands. But this prevents the lower classes from being ‘left behind’ which is their central intuitionistic fear.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 12:33:00 UTC

  • Fed Accusers Are Protecting Their Malinvestments and Resisting New Investments

    Fed Accusers Are Protecting Their Malinvestments and Resisting New Investments https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/25/fed-accusers-are-protecting-their-malinvestments-and-resisting-new-investments/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 00:06:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253837785108185088

  • Fed Accusers Are Protecting Their Malinvestments and Resisting New Investments

    by John Mark, Apr 6, 2020, 11:37 AM My standard response to the fed-post accusation is to: a) mock anyone who says using 2A for its primary intended purpose is “bad” (were the founding fathers “feds”? lmao), and; b) demand they produce and articulate a solution: “What is your plan for when the Right can’t win any more elections?” Often these groups/individuals that countersignal are either consciously or subconsciously trying to hold on to their “market share” of right-wing audience – they have invested significantly in what they are doing, and many people even on the dissident right are still hoping in vain that there is some other way to win without force. P kinda makes everybody else look bad and threatens to make them irrelevant because we are a) describing the situation with brutal honesty (force or at least show of force will be necessary) while they are not, and b) P is so stunningly well thought out, with such thorough coverage and breakthrough insight both in explanatory power and recommended solutions, that it is impossible for anyone else on the Right to compete with. (Simply put, no other group has Curt on their team.) P also requires a decent amount of time investment to understand well enough to say “yeah, I get how this could work”. And time is something leaders have very little of – I have very limited time to invest in learning details about what other leaders/movements/packs are doing. We are also slaying the sacred cows of libertarianism/ancap etc., and correcting a bunch of failed strategies all around. (For example, we say persuasion & voting can’t be the Right’s primary strategy – but most groups on the Right are built around that primary strategy.) All this results in the leaders of other “packs” sometimes having an initial negative reaction toward us. One way to mitigate this without compromising on the truth, may be to invite people like this on my show and genuinely try to promote them (cuz many of them are doing great work in many ways), and then also ask them what they think of our basic solution proposals (policies etc, not in-depth P stuff), and have that discussion. Propertarians are the adults in the room on the Right. And we’re figuring out how to deal with/work with the other “packs”.

  • Fed Accusers Are Protecting Their Malinvestments and Resisting New Investments

    by John Mark, Apr 6, 2020, 11:37 AM My standard response to the fed-post accusation is to: a) mock anyone who says using 2A for its primary intended purpose is “bad” (were the founding fathers “feds”? lmao), and; b) demand they produce and articulate a solution: “What is your plan for when the Right can’t win any more elections?” Often these groups/individuals that countersignal are either consciously or subconsciously trying to hold on to their “market share” of right-wing audience – they have invested significantly in what they are doing, and many people even on the dissident right are still hoping in vain that there is some other way to win without force. P kinda makes everybody else look bad and threatens to make them irrelevant because we are a) describing the situation with brutal honesty (force or at least show of force will be necessary) while they are not, and b) P is so stunningly well thought out, with such thorough coverage and breakthrough insight both in explanatory power and recommended solutions, that it is impossible for anyone else on the Right to compete with. (Simply put, no other group has Curt on their team.) P also requires a decent amount of time investment to understand well enough to say “yeah, I get how this could work”. And time is something leaders have very little of – I have very limited time to invest in learning details about what other leaders/movements/packs are doing. We are also slaying the sacred cows of libertarianism/ancap etc., and correcting a bunch of failed strategies all around. (For example, we say persuasion & voting can’t be the Right’s primary strategy – but most groups on the Right are built around that primary strategy.) All this results in the leaders of other “packs” sometimes having an initial negative reaction toward us. One way to mitigate this without compromising on the truth, may be to invite people like this on my show and genuinely try to promote them (cuz many of them are doing great work in many ways), and then also ask them what they think of our basic solution proposals (policies etc, not in-depth P stuff), and have that discussion. Propertarians are the adults in the room on the Right. And we’re figuring out how to deal with/work with the other “packs”.

  • And liquidation limited to the investment (w/o collateral) meaning shared liabil

    And liquidation limited to the investment (w/o collateral) meaning shared liability.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 21:31:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253798735991181312

    Reply addressees: @judicialist @ComicDaveSmith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253798386421071877


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @judicialist @ComicDaveSmith That’s a nice bit of pilpul but changing the words doesn’t change the transaction. They would be very, very, very careful who they lent to. They would create shareholder agreements. The funding party would be bought out by the other party, and in the case of failure, liquidation.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1253798386421071877

  • That’s a nice bit of pilpul but changing the words doesn’t change the transactio

    That’s a nice bit of pilpul but changing the words doesn’t change the transaction. They would be very, very, very careful who they lent to. They would create shareholder agreements. The funding party would be bought out by the other party, and in the case of failure, liquidation.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 21:30:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253798386421071877

    Reply addressees: @judicialist @ComicDaveSmith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253797444044886021

  • What is the difference between lending at interest and usury?

    What is the difference between lending at interest and usury?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 19:33:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253769091711733761

    Reply addressees: @judicialist @ComicDaveSmith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253763499085434880