Conspiracy of Common Interests vs Of Intent https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/conspiracy-of-common-interests-vs-of-intent/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 19:56:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253412428626313219
Conspiracy of Common Interests vs Of Intent https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/conspiracy-of-common-interests-vs-of-intent/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 19:56:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253412428626313219
—“Maybe I’m unclear on what you mean by intent. It seems to me incentives and intent are interlinked.”—Scott Strong
CONSPIRACY OF COMMON INTERESTS: Passively follow incentives to seize existing opportunity – and fail to not seize opportunity that is immoral. CONSPIRACY OF INTENT: Actively work to create opportunities to seize because they are immoral. CONSPIRACY OF IDIOCY: Actively work to crate opportunities to seize that are immoral because you falsely believe that they are moral (you justify them) CONSPIRACY TO BAIT INTO HAZARD: Actively work to create opportunities for others to seize that produce immoral consequences.
[E]conomists talked in bold, confident, nonsense up until 2008. They don’t any longer. For good reason. You can produce and economy as an extension of producing rule of law of reciprocity but you cannot produce an economy directly. You can insure some of an economy by partnership between state and strategic industry. But an economy is an endless competition – war – at slow speed, and there is no way to outwit chaos.
[E]conomists talked in bold, confident, nonsense up until 2008. They don’t any longer. For good reason. You can produce and economy as an extension of producing rule of law of reciprocity but you cannot produce an economy directly. You can insure some of an economy by partnership between state and strategic industry. But an economy is an endless competition – war – at slow speed, and there is no way to outwit chaos.
Demonic gods are not terrifying except to children. What’s terrifying is market competition and acceptance of our inequality and your status in the market. The solution? Develop alternative markets, not for accomplishment but for adherence.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 13:14:00 UTC
HOW DO WE DEFINE ECONOMICS? IT TOOK TIME…
Adam Smith (1776) defined what was then called political economy as “an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations”, in particular as:
—“a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator [with the twofold objectives of providing] a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people … [and] to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue for the publick services.”—
John Stuart Mill (1844) defines the subject in a social context as:
—“The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, in so far as those phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object.”—
Alfred Marshall provides a still widely cited definition in his textbook Principles of Economics (1890) that extends analysis beyond wealth and from the societal to the microeconomic level:
—“Economics is a study of man in the ordinary business of life. It enquires how he gets his income and how he uses it. Thus, it is on the one side, the study of wealth and on the other and more important side, a part of the study of man.”—
Lionel Robbins (1932) developed implications of what has been termed “Perhaps the most commonly accepted current definition of the subject”:
—“Economics is a science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.”—
Gary Becker, a contributor to the expansion of economics into new areas, describes the approach he favours as :
—The study of human behavior by “Combining i) the assumptions of maximizing behaviour, ii) stable preferences, and iii) market equilibrium, used relentlessly and unflinchingly.”—
I’m pretty obviously a Beckerian in that I see economics as a methodology applied to the science of studying demonstrated behavior, and the application of physics to life forms that (a) have memories, (b) consciousness, and (c) the possibility of cooperation.
I see economics as an extension of physics into conscious life. And I see p-law as the logic of invariance from the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws.
I see Physics, Economics, Law, and evolutionary necessity as the hierarchy of laws of nature.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 12:25:00 UTC
—“I’m not entirely sure why so many people make economics a mystery.”—Robert Danis
Fixed Pie vs:
1) opportunity costs
2) equilibration and full accounting
3) lacking basic vocabulary and knowledge of the two cycles.
4) ISLM->ISMP vocabulary talking about aggregates vs operational vocabulary talking about behaviors)
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 11:20:00 UTC
Economists talked in bold, confident, nonsense up until 2008. They don’t any longer. For good reason. You can produce and economy as an extension of producing rule of law of reciprocity but you cannot produce an economy directly. You can insure some of an economy by partnership between state and strategic industry. But an economy is an endless competition – war – at slow speed, and there is no way to outwit chaos.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 10:20:00 UTC
What is the difference between investment and rent seeking?
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 10:00:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253262418194595840
Reply addressees: @CGoydich
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253262023825264642
History says rates will go down.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 09:57:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253261599764250625
Reply addressees: @CGoydich
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253259391475814401