Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

—“Would be sooo great if the Fed would further lower interest rates and quantitative ease. The Dollar is very strong against other currencies and there is almost no inflation. This is the time to do it. Exports would zoom!”—Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

—“The dollar will weaken soon, but exports will not zoom. The biggest effect will be to increase the cost of our imports, leading to even higher trade deficits. There is plenty of inflation now, but it’s about to get much worse. We can’t make America great again by printing money!”—Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff

Let’s just keep in mind that our trade deficit is tiny. We’re practically autarkic, and we could be with ease. If we repatriated autos and electronics (which we should for every single reason imaginable) we wouldn’t have a trade deficit worth talking about)

We could take the country entirely autarkic, pay a two to three year cost for it, and emerge with a century-long benefit from it.And that is the problem with democracy and monetary inflation that causes short term investment in what is largely rents rather than long term returns.

—“That is the dumbest suggestion ever… That is exactly what USSR tried to do and failed miserably…. Come on man, study up on the past before you talk about the future…”—

That’s a different question, and you’re leaping to a conclusion.

How Autarkic is france? Why?

The reasons for the failure of the soviet union are as long as the failure of the roman empire. The primary reasons are (a) effectively a universal minimum/maximum wage, (b) incentives because of it (c) corruption because of it, (d) centralization rather than transformation b/c.

The sole reason for the failure of the USSR was socialism…. The govt spent too much on defense and could no longer afford to keep their union together. People need to be free to make whatever economic choices they want, and should not be made dependent on a govt bound to fail

I think you need to read something that isn’t propaganda. They converted a very primitive backward people (1/3 of which still live in villages today using outhouses) into urbanization and industrialization.The chinese haven’t failed using the same strategy, because they use debt.

Where the Russians used price control on labor. But central investment and planning of transformation is optimum velocity if catching up. Private capital is superior for returns on capital and limiting corruption. Russians created black markets in everything. Chinese haven’t.

State financing of core industries has always been a competitive advantage and the USA has ‘hidden it’ by using the military as means of R&D, that the private sector privatizes and converts to a market good. Other countries keep the returns on those investments. We don’t.

So the prevailing argument at present, is that we have stopped using the military as a sufficient means of indirect investment in R&D, and because of unions, saw capital and skill flight (like the russians/ukrainians did after 92).

So do we keep using the military for basic and technological research or do what world does, which is use state(debt) to finance longer term returns, and continue to turn the returns to the private sector or capture some of those returns to pay down the debt directly?

And that is the explanation for the decline in productivity (aside from the decline in the IQ of the population due to destruction of middle class reproduction, urbanization, and the Baumol effect urban prices produce in the economy?

—“No economic system is more productive than unfettered capitalism. The problem is some are just WAY more productive than others and class envy inevitably occurs. This is why there is welfare. So unproductive classes don’t cut the heads off productive classes. French Revolution”—

Define unfettered capitalism because you’re a sucker for another of the tribe’s false dichotomies.

There is no more productive system than rule of law of reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.

The result is markets. Jewish capitalism != European rule of law

—“Unfettered capitalism occurs when govt does not insert itself into the economy to the benefit of those who can lobby the govt best. The US has always been mercantilist. Never have we been true capitalists.”—

You know, all libertarian tropes are half truths that use the abrahamic technique of deception, to bait you into hazard.

1) How do you distinguish productive from parasitic transfers? 2) how do you prevent externalities?

3) Can private capital produce returns on 20+ yr horizons?

4) What is the demarcation between productive voluntary transfer and rent seeking?

5) What is the demarcation between profitability, productivity, and privatization of commons, socialization of losses?

Libertarianism=private property marxism. Communism=common property marxism.

6) rule of law and the institution of property = commons, and the function of the state (military, judiciary) is to defend commons, and the function of the government(however it’s done) is to produce and maintain commons. And the purpose of markets is production of consumption.

So whenever someone is using the term ‘capitalism’ instead of rule of law (Lule of Law of Sovereignty in demonstrated interests (property) and reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfer, free of externality) they’re participating in 2nd gen Big Lies.

The false dichotomy of Capitalism / socialism-communism, like Marxism, Neoconservatism (trotskyism), Libertarianism (rothbardianism), Feminism, Postmodernism and Denialism(Political correctness) are just the modern era’s equivalent of judaism, christianity and islam: big lies.

You either have rule of law by Sovereignty, Demonstrated Interest, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth and Contract, or you have discretionary rule that seeks to license some form of violation of sovereignty and reciprocity by deceit.

Capitalism is another lie by half truth.

Rule of law by reciprocity within the limits of proportionality (defection), where Reciprocity consists of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition upon the demonstrated of interests of others by externality.